Wikipedia

Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Neelix

< Wikipedia talk:Arbitration | Requests | Case
Latest comment: 9 years ago by Müdigkeit in topic Other comments
Main case page (talk) — Evidence (talk) — Workshop (talk) — Proposed decision (talk)

Case clerk: Amortias (talk) Drafting arbitrators: Euryalus (talk) & Doug Weller (talk)

Wikipedia Arbitration
Open proceedings
Active sanctions
Arbitration Committee
Audit
Track related changes

Behaviour on this page: Arbitration case pages exist to assist the Arbitration Committee in arriving at a fair, well-informed decision. You are required to act with appropriate decorum during this case. While grievances must often be aired during a case, you are expected to air them without being rude or hostile, and to respond calmly to allegations against you. Accusations of misbehaviour posted in this case must be proven with clear evidence (and otherwise not made at all). Editors who conduct themselves inappropriately during a case may be sanctioned by an arbitrator or clerk, without further warning, by being banned from further participation in the case, or being blocked altogether. Personal attacks against other users, including arbitrators or clerks, will be met with sanctions. Behaviour during a case may also be considered by the Committee in arriving at a final decision.

Preliminary statements

edit
Latest comment: 9 years ago38 comments24 people in discussion

Statement by Ched

edit

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

per Inevitable, User:Neelix has created multiple redirects which the community feels are improper. There are also concerns about about use of tools, and long-term actions. This situation is familiar to many[1], as well as many of the Arbcom members.[2]

I will also note that while it is not "on" wiki as far as "en-wiki" .. I am seeing unusual activity on commons. Such as moving files from the category of "men" to "men looking at viewer"[3]. I ask the committee to review this situation. — Ched :  ?  06:43, 8 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

  • @ Arbcom. Please don't drag this out for months. Many of you have your own views on this (and other) situations. Just put up what you're going to inevitably put up, vote on it, and be done with it. Personally? I have some understanding of what may have been the root of this. But you folks are the last line of resolution on this website. Most of you decide how you're going to come down on things within a few days of a situation. Stop. Just Stop with the months long bullshit. If ever there was a "drama monger" on wiki .. it is Arbcom. The way people get emotionally dragged through bullshit in arb cases is absurd. We know that Arbs are not accountable to the community - that's already been established. Take the admin bit away per community consensus, and decide what style of topic bans apply. Let the kid have his say, and tell him flat-out what he can and can not do. — Ched :  ?  17:54, 8 November 2015 (UTC)Reply
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Statement by Beyond My Ken

edit

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Just a pro forma statement: obviously, given my disquisitions below, I would have preferred that this be dealt with by motion, but since the Committee has decided not to do that, I formally urge them to accept the case. I have no evidence to offer as such -- nothing that isn't already available elsewhere -- and do not believe that I will be participating in the case, but I do request that the Arbitrators take the ArbCom equivalent of "judicial notice" of the AN/I thread in which the issue was raised, and of the comments connected to the original motion. I would suggest that, if possible, both be incorporated into the record of the case.
Finally, I would not be human, or true to my own feelings, if I didn't express how profoundly I am disappointed in the Committee's collective failure to take decisive and necessary action to deal with what seems to me to be a clear-cut case of the community's loss of trust in Neelix. I continue to see little value in a full case, when the evidence available now is more than sufficient to justify an immediate desysop.
I would also like to express my thanks to GorillaWarfare, Courcelles, LFaraone, and Thryduff for having the good sense to agree with me that a motion was sufficient. BMK (talk) 07:34, 8 November 2015 (UTC)Reply
@Salvio giuliano: I don't quite understand. There was a motion, and you voted to have a case. Now that there's a case request, you voted to accept it and deal with it by motion. ?? BMK (talk) 19:10, 8 November 2015 (UTC)Reply
I also don't understand why you weren't aware of the relevant statement in WP:ADMIN which Iridescent and Lugnut cited, considering that I quoted it, in bold, in both the AN/I thread and in the comments about the motion. BMK (talk) 19:14, 8 November 2015 (UTC)Reply
I just want to point out the irony that many of the Arbs who voted against taking care of this problem by motion cited letting Neelix have his say, his "day in court", yet we have a report here that Neelix has told ArbCom that he will not be participating in the case should it be accepted. Assuming that is true, what you're going to get in a case is a reiteration of the same evidence that everyone's been chewing over on AN/I and in the motion comments, plus whatever new stuff gets uncovered in the meantime, none of which is likely to reflect well on Neelix. BMK (talk) 04:23, 9 November 2015 (UTC)Reply
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Statement by Tom (LT)

edit

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I also want to express, as above, my profound disappointment with the committee for not de-sysopping an admin who is clearly unfit and has clearly lost the trust of the community. Even a quick review of his edits demonstrates this.

Desysopping should at the very least be an interim measure while the case is discussed.

With regard to the case, it may allow for a more thorough examination of the problem edits here, however I am not sure what benefit an Arbcom case would give above the existing AN/I examination --Tom (LT) (talk) 08:01, 8 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Statement by Jbhunley

edit

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Misuse of admin tools - the events are over a year old but they are very recent administrative actions due to Neelix's very low activity as an admin.

  • He has performed a WP:INVOLVED block. In his second to last block [4]Neelix made was a clearly involved block of Xxxxxf to protect articles he created.

This behavior, combined with his very low activity as an admin points to him considering the admin bit more as a weapon than as a toolbox. JbhTalk 10:00, 8 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

Reply to comment by Ivanvector Neelix has not been helping clean up his mess in any meaningful way. As of this time his deletion log [10] shows he has cleaned up redirects to one article. The redirects consist of

(Thirteen headed, Thirteen-headed, Thirteenheaded, Thirteen heads, Thirteen-heads, Thirteenheads, Thirteen head, Thirteen-head, Thirteenhead all the way up, using the same variations - plus hyphen variations for numbers above 20 - to Twenty-eight-head)

He did this four days ago at a very consistent six edits per minute. Why he chose thirteen as the cut off for useful redirects to Polycephaly remains a mystery since he left [[11] Dozenhead on down. This does not show that he has figured out good vs silly vs bad redirects but that he either is unwilling to help or unable to distinguish his good redirects from his bad except in the most extreme case.

Additional material:

Neelix's redirect creation has had effects that reach beyond Wikipedia.

  • I also urge the committee to take note of the advocacy/obsession with Tara Teng and the walled garden he set up around her and her stance against Human trafficking. A list of many of the articles can be found at [[12]]. While some may indeed be notable most were written simply as stars in the Tara Teng universe. One of the saddest is :
Iris Thomsen "These four women spent five weeks together at the competition, during which they bonded in their hotel. Teng invited Thompson, Baldachino, and Orešnik to visit her in Canada for a week.[6] All three accepted Teng's invitation and visited Teng in Vancouver, British Columbia in February 2013... and they also visited some of Teng's other favourite charitable organizations, including Deborah's Gate, a safe house operated by The Salvation Army". This is about half of the text in the article.

There is this whole walled garden he created around Ms. Teng, the play She Has a Name what links there. It would be best if Neelix were not able to continue with his 'intense interest' in Tara Teng and anything even tangentially related to her. If the committee does not intent to address this issue they should say so to allow the community to handle the matter since nothing will happen while the scope of the case is not defined.

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Statement by NE Ent

edit

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Everyone should wait for Neelix to make a statement before proceeding. Basic human decency. The fact that these redirects existed for months and years would indicating no one noticed, or cared enough to complain, should be indicative that haste is not required. NE Ent 12:31, 8 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

I'll remind the committee of its wise and brilliant 2014 precedent of simply accepting and suspending the case per path of least drama. NE Ent 13:20, 8 November 2015 (UTC)Reply
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Statement by Kelly

edit

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

  • Comment - there also seems to be an issue of advocacy here; there's a whole walled garden of articles related to Canadian beauty pageant winner Tara Teng, events she has participated in, causes she espouses and people tangentially associated with her. I've started nominating several of them for deletion as failing the notability guidelines but a lot more work is needed. Kelly hi! 14:45, 8 November 2015 (UTC)Reply
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Statement by MLauba

edit

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

If you're looking for a slightly more creative remedy, I'd suggest asking Neelix to stand a reconfirmation RFA within one month. If they don't, they are desysopped. One month, on the other hand, allows for more light than heat in the proceeding. Clerks, no need to add me to the messaging list. MLauba (Talk) 13:26, 8 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Statement by LjL

edit

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This is an evidence-backed recap and timeline of the negative events as I am aware of them, which I had previously provided in a request to block the user:

  • He was blocked in 2010 for making inappropriate redirects; however, he resumed that behavior.
  • Once asked to give up his admin privileges and delete his bogus redirects, he did neither thing, except for a proportionally small number of redirects; instead, he went back to Commons to do more automated-looking edits.

This shows that misbehavior and poor judgement is a long-term and ongoing problem, and involves both admin-specific and editor-specific circumstances. Evidence shows he is not furthering Wikipedia's goals, and despite quite laconic "apologies", he isn't showing an understanding of the issues at hand and what he should fix.

LjL (talk) 14:11, 8 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Statement by SSTflyer

edit

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The use of automated tools to mass-create redirects is not disallowed, and WP:MASSCREATION only applies to articles in categories. However, these redirect creations still need to meet guidelines, and many of Neelix's problematic redirect creations meet WP:RFD#D8. There is also the Tara Teng fiasco, and the inappropriate use of admin tools in WP:INVOLVED situations. This looks like a WP:CIR problem here. I think Neelix has lost the community's trust. sst✈discuss 15:26, 8 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Statement by Lugnuts

edit

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Quite simply, WP:ADMINACCT has to be applied. "Administrators who seriously, or repeatedly, act in a problematic manner or have lost the trust or confidence of the community may be sanctioned or have their access removed." Previously blocked for similar activity and doing something that would leave any non-admin indef'd from further editing. I'm failing to see how the creation of thousands of redirects that fall into the categories of pointless, offensive and just plain daft add any value to the project. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 17:32, 8 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Statement by Biblioworm

edit

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

In my opinion, these redirects were immature and grossly inappropriate for an encyclopedia. If this were a new user, we all know that such behavior would be treated as vandalism and the user would be indef blocked for vandalism. (And the blocking admin would probably think the user was a kid.) I don't see why we should treat such actions by admins any differently. In fact, I might have very well blocked the user for vandalism if I had been an admin at the time (I just became one yesterday) when these silly redirects were being created. I think the user in question should be desysopped or at the very least banned from creating any redirects. --Biblioworm 18:08, 8 November 2015 (UTC), edited @ 18:10, 8 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Statement by Iridescent

edit

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

@Salvio, regarding Unfortunately, desysops for "loss of trust" are not a thing, you might want to actually read what the policy actually says ("Administrators who seriously, or repeatedly, act in a problematic manner or have lost the trust or confidence of the community may be sanctioned or have their access removed" if you want chapter-and-verse.) ‑ iridescent 18:25, 8 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Statement by Tryptofish

edit

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

You should accept this case, and it does not have to take a long time to decide it. The community should not confound the decision to take a case with a failure to act in a timely manner. There is nothing wrong with giving the accused an opportunity to respond in full. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:30, 8 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Statement by Davey2010

edit

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Seeing as desysopping at Motion didn't work I believe this should be accepted, As I've said a million times - If an editor (or even a troll/vandal) created thousands upon thousands of offensive, immature and plain right stupid redirects they'd get blocked indef in the blink of an eye, He was blocked in 2010 for the exact same thing and has even decided to create "lovely" categories on Commons (Yes I know Commons is another website in some respects but still it's all the same behaviour at the end of the day), I've also said elsewhere I honestly feel once all this dies down he'd just go back to creating the redirects again, I'm all for AGF but it only goes so far!. –Davey2010Talk 19:51, 8 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Statement by Opabinia regalis

edit

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Why are we here? Yes, you can accept and deal with this by motion, but you already had a motion...   Facepalm

Please do not drag this out for a month and then some. This is a matter of a fairly young identifiable person caught doing something excruciatingly stupid and embarrassing in public. Desysopping is obvious; topic bans can be handled at ANI; the matter of all the POV-ish articles is (finally) being handled by the community; the business on Commons (which is actually worse IMO) is Commons' business and while it should be taken into consideration here, we obviously can't do anything about it.

Holding a case in order to "let Neelix have his say" is, given the facts and his comments on Commons, not a kindness to him. Also, the fits-and-starts approach to handling a fairly obvious case of "conduct unbecoming" makes the project look inept. It's not a problem of speed; it's a problem of process. Jumping around from ANI to a motion to "oh no, this doesn't look like the Level 2A.b subsection J procedure" to voting to accept a case and handle it by motion and on and on, in response to a situation that is a very effective illustration of how unwelcoming and alienating the environment here can be to women participants*, just looks really stupid. Opabinia regalis (talk) 20:18, 8 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

* Dare I say it, a much more substantive one than another matter currently under the committee's consideration...

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Statement by Rich Farmbrough

edit

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Seems Neelix didn't get that these redirects would not be acceptable and/or useful - they clearly get it now. Many of the redirects they have created have been unexceptional. The incident way way back in 2010 might have been a clue, but they might see this as completely different. The block then was as much for concern over a compromised account as anything.

Creating redirects is not an abuse of admin tools, having made an unwise choice of nomenclature is a learning opportunity.

I see no reason to de-sysop Neelix, it is not protecting the Wiki. Given that, the community is quite capable of topic banning Neelix from mass creation of redirects for a year, or forever, should they wish.

Therefore there is no grounds for an Arb case.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 23:30, 8 November 2015 (UTC).Reply

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Statement by Wikimandia

edit

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

For the most part I have not felt any issues with being a female Wikipedian, but I am shocked to see people claim he was trying to improve Wikipedia, both here and on the ANI board. What you have here appears to be some sort of compulsive behavior related to a fetish of the female breast. I truly believe the only conceivable way he thought anyone would ever search for these terms would be if said person had a serious breast fetish. That there is even more obsessive categorization at Commons is not surprising (look how many subcategories he created for "Nude or partially nude women with necklaces in cleavage", because "Nude women with necklaces" was not a specific enough breakdown) and shows this will not easily stop. It cannot be argued this kind of individual is helping the project. I wouldn't surprised if this pops up on Gawker showing a Wikipedia admin named Neelix made 25,000 "hidden articles" about "Nipple-feeders" and "booby fuckers" and that other admins said that Neelix surely thought he was being helpful and useful (as though that's the kind of thing a reasonable male admin finds helpful around here).

Ask yourself - if Neelix had created 30,000 "innocent" redirects of all plausible combinations of the N-word, K-word, White Power slogans and lines from Hitler speeches, I wonder how many of you would be so quick to say "awww he didn't know what he was doing wasn't right and now he's all embarrassed. He was trying to be helpful!" (Be helpful and useful to whom, exactly?) I mean, if words are just words, and words shouldn't be labeled "puerile" and WP:NOTCENSORED, then your understanding of his motives would be no different if he made all those redirects, right? —МандичкаYO 😜 04:33, 9 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Statement by Viriditas

edit

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

DGG, with the greatest respect, the majority of the criticism against arbcom has to do with the fact that you don't do serious things and let problems get worse. If this criticism forms the surprising basis for arbcom, then how does the community go about disbanding it? If what you say is true, then arbcom is acting against the best interests of the community. In other words, we want serious action, and if you can't do that, then please dissolve the committee. Viriditas (talk) 05:15, 9 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Statement by Drmies

edit

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Lugnuts says it pretty good: conduct unbecoming of an admin. I've made more extensive remarks in the now-defunct motion. While I said there or at the ANI thread that I don't think there's a rush, I don't see the reason for a full case. No need to drag it out--no one, including Neelix, will benefit from that. Drmies (talk) 05:22, 9 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Statement by Worm That Turned

edit

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I just want to take a moment to thank the committee to make sure this happened properly. Being on Arbcom is a tough job and remaining objective in the face of outrage is one of the hardest parts. Desysopping Neelix for this by motion so quickly would have been wrong. He stopped, he apologised - taking a moment to decide whether the facts of the case were clear cut is the right thing to do. It's clear that the committee are agreed a case is needed here, and I absolutely agree. Can I suggest that opening the case and suspending it pending Neelix's return is the best thing to do. If he does not return within X period (say, 3 months?), he should be automatically desysopped (that's less than the Toddst1, because he is still editing at commons). Of course, that does depend on Neelix's email (which I haven't seen). If the committee thinks it prudent, open the case and have an expedited timetable - no workshop needed (per another case). Simply evidence, proposed decision. I'd recommend against dealing by motion as I believe there's possibly a little more to this case. WormTT(talk) 08:20, 9 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

@Euryalus:, I'm happy with your suggested expedited case, I appreciate the committee has a lot on its plate, but striking the balance between instant desysop and a dragged out case is important. I would still say that suspending the case should be seriously considered - in the interests of fairness, I like people to be there to defend themselves. If they choose not to, then presenting evidence against them seems... unfair. If they're not willing to face the music, don't force it upon them and simply enforce the consequence. Hence, 3 months and desysop. We're far more likely to keep Neelix as an editor through the suspended case method - and with 169k edits, I don't think anyone can say he's not been a valuable contributor. WormTT(talk) 09:58, 9 November 2015 (UTC)Reply
Thanks Euryalus. This comment sums up my point. It is always difficult for the target of cases and of ANI and so on. Some will fight to the bitter end, others will quit forever. If we can get the right outcome, without the pain, then that's a good thing. WormTT(talk) 10:09, 9 November 2015 (UTC)Reply
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Statement by Callinus

edit

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Just to note, the fact that he was blocked in 2010, but continued his behaviour (esp on Commons) and gave interviews to the press big-noting his edit count ([13][14]) means that his position as an admin is untenable. 09:54, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Statement by Carrite

edit

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

While the record will show that the overwhelming majority of redirects created by this Administrator are helpful and made in good faith, a disturbing number will be shown to be fetishistic and unhelpful. Additional POV editing may also come to light in a case. There is a fundamental loss of community trust to be addressed and consideration must be given as to whether this individual should retain tools in the wake of revelations about past editing behavior. As ArbCom is the only mechanism remaining for removal of tools, I urge acceptance of this case. Carrite (talk) 11:48, 9 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

@Wikimandia - Where are you getting the 30,000 number? Did you just make that up for dramatic effect or have you counted? In this context, a propagandistic overcount is uncalled for. Of course, I can only state that I've looked at the first 10,000 of an 80,000 a 50,000 redirect body of "work" and there may be an insane proportion of unacceptable redirects surfacing in the 70,000 40,000 examples I have not seen. Still, I doubt very much that the count of problematic redirects is anywhere near the number you cite. Carrite (talk) 11:57, 9 November 2015 (UTC)Reply
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Statement by Ivanvector

edit

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I encourage the Committee to accept this case, and applaud the Committee for declining to desysop Neelix by motion by the light of the flaming pitchforks. I don't think that I need to repeat the evidence that others have already provided here (see LjL's statement in particular) but clearly there is a much wider issue here than simply the mass-creation of redirects of questionable utility. And there is very little evidence of Neelix abusing administrative tools; if a desysop by WP:LEVEL2 would not have been appropriate then I question whether doing so by motion would have been appropriate, either.

On the issue of the redirects specifically, I have repeatedly argued that Neelix, like the many other users who we've seen mass-creating useless marginally useful redirects recently, may simply have not understood that they should not be created. We have no guidance about why not to create redirects at the moment, which is something that some users at WT:REDIRECT have only just recently started to address. The problem of now cleaning up this mass of redirects is not one solely of Neelix's creation although he is a significant contributor to that mess, and he has begun to use his administrative tools to help clean it up. That's not a net positive, but it could be worse.

The wider issue is that highlighted by the Wikipediocracy article, and the issues brought to light in that opinion piece deserve a full case, to determine whether Neelix should be allowed to edit at all. But that's still not an issue of administrative abuse, but certainly a loss-of-trust issue. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:37, 9 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

@Jbhunley: just so you know, ping doesn't work unless you sign your edit. I realize Neelix's effort to clean up the mess has been at best weak; it's worth mentioning that it's better than nothing, but not by very much. I only knew that he had deleted two (nude pelvis, naked pelvis) which came up at Rfd; the ones you pointed out represent an additional 140-ish deletions. I'm not an administrator and I don't know how much work is involved in deleting an article but that seems like an ok start. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 17:55, 9 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Statement by DD2K

edit

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

  1. ANI -30,521 words(and counting) - 176,201 characters(and counting)
  1. Arb Motion Request - 15,690 words(and counting) - 90,820 characters(and counting)
  1. ArbCom case request - 5,694 words(and counting) - 33,481(and counting)
  1. Numerous Talk pages(Neelix's plus other involved parties) -- who knows.
  1. Total over 60,000 words(and counting) and 300,000 characters(and counting)

When all of this could have been handled by passing the motion to desysop Neelix and topic ban him from creating redirects and Tara Teng, with some common sense and maturity, sorely lacking here. Forcing editors to bring evidence(that is patently obvious for anyone to see), humiliate Neelix because he is too oblivious to simply resign and understand the problems he has caused, is beyond hubris. Bureaucracy for the sake of bureaucracy. Dave Dial (talk) 19:15, 9 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Statement by Softlavender

edit

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I would like to ask Ched and ArbCom why this case is called "Improper redirects" rather than "Neelix"? The Neelix issue and problem and case goes far far beyond "improper redirects", and the entire case and whole longterm system of actions and behavior is going to have to be looked at, particularly since he is an admin. Not only has Neelix been pushing a longterm agenda and abusing his status as an admin while doing so, he has also abused the tools to do so, including the block tool [15]. Coupled with that agenda regarding prostitution and the like, he has evidenced a seemingly uncontrollable and puerile obsession with sexuality, nudity, scatology, and body parts. The mass creation (80,000) of redirects on En-Wiki (and on Commons too) also serves many self-serving purposes. Here are just a few: (1) It effectively obscures and hides any substantive edits he makes, and also hides the articles he has created. (2) It makes him a "Wikipedia Spokesperson" and "Wikipedia Ambassador" (both of which he has been interviewed by the press as on several occasions) because of his astronomical edit count [16], [17]. (3) It provides an outlet for his puerile obsession with sexuality and the like. None of these behaviors are conduct becoming of an admin. Combined, they create a composite of someone who is a net negative for Wikipedia at this point. He's already been blocked for a similar reason once (creating mass scatological redirects), promised not to continue as the condition of his unblock, and yet obviously could not and did not stop. Mass creation of redirects in general does harm the project in innumerable other ways, and needs to be recognized and actionable as WP:DE. But my primary question remains: considering his agenda-pushing, his behavioral and psychological issues, and the fact that he is an admin, Why is this case titled "Improper redirects" and not "Neelix"? Softlavender (talk) 00:43, 10 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Motion: Neelix desysoped

edit
Latest comment: 9 years ago167 comments63 people in discussion

Original discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

For this motion there are 12 active arbitrators. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 7 support or oppose votes are a majority.

For conduct unbecoming an administrator, namely the mass creation of inappropriate redirects, Neelix (talk · contribs) is desysoped. He may regain the tools at any time via a successful request for adminship.

Support
  1. As proposer. There is currently an ANI discussion about this, and I'm confident that the community can place any blocks, topic bans, or other restrictions if they decide they are necessary. However, it is the Arbitration Committee's responsibility to examine whether this behavior rises to the level where a desysop is needed. In my opinion, it clearly does. Redirects like "Run-or-rape video game" (to Sex and nudity in video games) and "Titty tumour" (to Breast cancer) are useless and downright offensive. Redirects like "Booby magnetic resonance imaging" (to Breast MRI), "Tittoos" (to Nipple tattoo), and "Boobypumper" (to Breast pump) are useless and just immature. Any editor should know better than to create multitudes of useless and offensive redirects, and this is nowhere near the level of good judgment and maturity I would expect of an administrator. GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:22, 6 November 2015 (UTC)Reply
  2. While I would not support a block without further creations, this is such a sustained pattern of bad judgment a new RFA needs to happen if Neelix wants to keep the tools. Courcelles (talk) 04:43, 6 November 2015 (UTC)Reply
    A clear loss of good judgement. LFaraone 05:03, 6 November 2015 (UTC)Reply
    It's clear that Neelix has lost the community's trust in his good judgement as an administrator, and (whatever the merits of a community desysopping procedure) we are at present the only people who can deal with this issue. Neelix has responded at ANI and the issues are clear, so a case would be a waste of everyone's time. This motion is without prejudice to the ongoing community discussion about editing or other restrictions on Neelix or on any action that results from that discussion, and that Neelix can regain his adminship by passing RFA. Thryduulf (talk) 10:21, 6 November 2015 (UTC)Reply
    A great deal more evidence has been posted while I was away over the weekend, and I have not yet had time to read it all but the matter is no longer as clear as it was, so I'm removing my support from this motion. If it remains open when I have read everything (although this is looking unlikely) I may reinstate it. Thryduulf (talk) 18:09, 9 November 2015 (UTC)Reply
Oppose
  1. I appreciate this will be an unpopular vote - a virtue of retiring in two months is the chance to occasionally take a more contrary view. Many of Neelix's redirects are stupid, some are offensive, most are unnecessary. It's conduct unbecoming an editor, and it should be addressed with respect to editing rights: Neelix should go back and delete almost all of his redirects, if he fails to do so or creates more he should be blocked for disruption, and there should be community consideration of a topic ban from redirect creation given he seems unable to understand why there's a problem with the ones he made. But on balance I'm not seeing how this relates to his ability to do admin janitorial tasks. He has not abused admin tools; nor has he attempted to abuse admin "status" to win disputes or irritate others. He has made an embarrassing series of edits; let him undo those, and lets indefinitely remove him from that editing area. And then let's move on. -- Euryalus (talk) 05:23, 6 November 2015 (UTC)Reply
    Note that the above relates to a desysop for the reasons outlined in the motion. If there's additional allegations against Neelix, they should be written up and/or included in the motion itself, and considered as a case request instead of summary decision. As is/was standard practice with similar claims of admin unsuitability over this year. -- Euryalus (talk) 05:55, 6 November 2015 (UTC)Reply
    In case it is not clear in the above, there is enough evidence of other conduct questions that I support a full case. But I remain opposed to a desysop by motion on solely the redirect grounds. -- Euryalus (talk) 19:11, 6 November 2015 (UTC)Reply
  2. I do not oppose the idea of desysoping, but I would like to have a full case. I was apprehensive about doing this on the list when I marked myself as inactive last night. (I don't have internet in my apartment yet.) This morning when I have internet and can look everything over, I am still apprehensive of taking up some of the methods of WP:PITCHFORKS. We are the Senate of Wikipedia; at tiny bit away from the sways of popular opinion on the drama boards on a given day and more deliberative. I beg my colleagues to do the right thing and to examine this fully with our process; maybe another restriction is in order as well. --In actu (Guerillero) | My Talk 13:55, 6 November 2015 (UTC)Reply
  3. I don't like doing this by motion either, if at all. The redirects were certainly ill-considered in most cases. But we're not looking at a "bright line" type violation here, nor a question of clear tool abuse, but rather a question of poor judgment. I think we need to take the time and consider whether that judgment was poor enough to warrant a desysopping. In the meantime, the issue can be controlled with by the various proposed solutions by the community, such as topic bans, rate limiting, or required vetting of proposed new redirects. This just isn't a situation that requires emergency-speed intervention, and if we can deliberate more carefully on it, we should. Seraphimblade Talk to me 22:22, 6 November 2015 (UTC)Reply
  4. A case is needed. We might possibly decide to resolve the case by a motion, but this deserves a proper hearing, not a rush to action. I note that by now the admin seems to be cooperating. DGG ( talk ) 04:37, 7 November 2015 (UTC)Reply
  5. I also support a case. I don't think I can add to the reasons given above. Doug Weller (talk) 07:25, 7 November 2015 (UTC)Reply
  6. Since the case is a little more nuanced than I originally thought, I'd say we should let this motion fail, so that if anyone thinks our intervention is necessary, they can file a case at RFAR. Salvio Let's talk about it! 15:02, 7 November 2015 (UTC)Reply
  7. We are the communities elected representatives, and I fully respect that. Currently we've gone from a suggestion on ANI to a Level II Desysop. I disagree that proceedurally, this was the correct thing to do in the first place. Futhermore, drama always bites hard at the time of the incident. For me, as a community representative of ALL members (not just who have noticed the incident), I would prefer we hear a statement from Neelix publicly in evidence and allow questions by arbitrators to be asked. Simply going on the community's (non-unanimous) word that they want the bit stripped, brings reminders of a religious context (if you believe in any of that, not saying I do either way). The idea of administrative recall would be a better step to see the full community colors. This is not a decision that needs to be made overnight, and I would prefer to hear evidence of past issues also concerning Neelix. There are also additional remedies that stop the issue at hand without being punitive (unlike some blocks proposed on ANI). -- Amanda (aka DQ) 04:59, 8 November 2015 (UTC)Reply
  8. Moving to oppose. While I believe that, as a blanket rule, requiring L1/L2 procedures or a case request possibly-resolved-by-motion goes against WP:NOTBUREAU, in this specific instance there's enough complexity here to make deciding on this without a case imprudent. LFaraone 18:25, 8 November 2015 (UTC)Reply
Abstain
Recuse

Discussion by arbitrators (Neelix desysoped)

edit

Noting that I am including AGK, Roger Davies, and DeltaQuad in the inactive count (as they are marked inactive at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee#Members) and Guerillero per a mailing list comment. Please adjust this if you're active on this one. GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:22, 6 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

@BeyondMyKen: I agree with you re blocks and bans being in the community's power; I also think this is what the community should impose. And I agree there is strong (but not unanimous) community support for a desysop. I predict there will be strong (but not unanimous) Arbcom support for it too. But as you say, Arbcom is elected to offer its own judgement on desysops, in addition to considering community consensus. Otherwise we could dispense with the committee entirely and just have desysop votes on ANI. In my judgement a desysop is not the appropriate penalty for the creation of stupid redirects. Its a minority view, but one made having had regard for community comments both for and against the idea. -- Euryalus (talk) 07:30, 6 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

Neelix is technically not inactive as an Admin, but he's virtually inactive. I'd like to give him time to decide if he will resign his tools before we vote further. Or to explain why it's important to the communityh for him to keep them. Doug Weller (talk) 08:48, 6 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

@Worm That Turned: This is a Level 2 desysop. He's been notified on his talk page and hopefully by email (I'm checking that). There's no emergency here and I've made it clear to my colleagues he should be given time to respond. A desysop may be appropriate but I agree we need to follow procedure. We aren't always good at that. As an aside, I think that Admins should have some sort of activity requirement similar to those who have CU and OS - maybe a minimum number of Admin actions each year combined with a minimum in any 2 quarters, which is slightly different from the OS and CU requirements. Doug Weller (talk) 16:12, 6 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

As soon as I get GMO done and posted I'll comment here. I do want to wait for comment, this isn't a super urgent issue. NativeForeigner Talk 21:40, 6 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

@Worm That Turned: We discussed a level two desysop on the mailing list, but a couple of us said that we preferred to hold the voting in public—I personally don't see any reasons that would require this to happen off-wiki. If there was more significant appetite for an entire arbitration case, I wouldn't be opposed to having an official case request, but no arbitrators had indicated they felt this needed an entire case. Is it codified somewhere that we must go through the entire case request process just to post a motion, when we think a simple motion would suffice? Also, we have confirmed that Neelix is aware of this motion. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:09, 6 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

  • I will be active for this motion. Right now, I do have an opinion that has not fully formed, and neither do I wish to post it at this time, as my reasoning is not set. The one thing I hope my fellow arbitrators realize is that this doesn't need to be done overnight. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 04:34, 7 November 2015 (UTC)Reply
@NE Ent: is right, in US terms we are more of a (somewhat limited) Supreme Court, not part of the legislative system - that's basically the community -- they make the policies and guidelines, not us. Doug Weller (talk) 15:03, 7 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

Community comments (Neelix desysoped)

edit
  • Yes. Conduct completely unbecoming of an admin, and by that I also mean the non-answer answers in the ANI thread and the refusal to make even the slightest effort to clean up the mess: Neelix had plenty of opportunity to make a token effort. I've deleted well over 300 of these offensive terms tonight; looking at the list is like looking at a list of phrases Google would block in a SafeSearch. But worse than the conduct is the complete lack of judgment and common sense, which is even more important for an administrator. Drmies (talk) 04:35, 6 November 2015 (UTC)Reply
  • I believe that this (sadly) is necessary. See my statement here. ~Oshwah~ (talk) (contribs) 04:40, 6 November 2015 (UTC)Reply
  • Support. Today's situation is a repeat of this, greatly expanded. --NeilN talk to me 04:45, 6 November 2015 (UTC)Reply
  • This seems like a dramatic overreaction. --MZMcBride (talk) 04:57, 6 November 2015 (UTC)Reply
  • Support. This type of behavior indicates a user not worthy of the mop. If this behavior had been brought up during an RFA discussion, Neelix would never have been made an admin in the first place. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 05:02, 6 November 2015 (UTC)Reply
  • Support. This behavior is just stratosphericly incomprehensible (except to possibly obscure his substantive edits) and disruptive. Should also face a topic ban or indef block. In addition, Neelix has for years been abusing his privileges as an admin to promote his Salvationist ideology by writing and promoting (often to FA) excessively long and largely unwarranted screeds against prostitution, on Wikipedia. (There's a WO article on it somewhere that can be Googled [I have now posted it a few posts below].) Softlavender (talk) 05:25, 6 November 2015 (UTC); edited 05:48, 6 November 2015 (UTC)Reply
  • I have suggested in the ANI thread that this could be an honest mistake on Neelix' part, and that desysopping (particularly emergency desysopping) is unwarranted. Neelix has expressed a rationale for creation of these redirects in the ANI thread; his rationale is clearly not compatible with WP:POFR but it seems like good-faith misinterpretation, and clearly not intended to be disruptive. He has not abused the admin tools. Indeed, had Neelix stepped in to eliminate these redirects after the ANI thread opened, we might just as well be proposing desysopping for violation of WP:INVOLVED and trying to bury his transgressions. Aside from the creation of a massive number of inappropriate redirects, Neelix has been a valuable contributor for many years. Removing his admin bit will not stop the flood of redirects - any confirmed user can create them. These creations have been going on for years with nobody raising any objection at all, prior to crossing into the territory of human female anatomy roughly two months ago. I would like the Committee to consider whether desysopping is really of any benefit to the project in this case. However, I recognize (and the Committee should also consider) that my opinion is deeply in the minority here. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 05:36, 6 November 2015 (UTC)Reply
  • (edit conflict) All I get from that article is that someone's got a hate on for Neelix and HJ Mitchell. Don't mistake my comments for an endorsement of his actions, what he's done here is obviously wrong. But I don't see how desysopping is the solution, or anything more than just retribution. From hanging out at WP:RFD I see good-faith misunderstandings of the usefulness of redirects all the time from users who should know better; this looks like an extremely bad case of that, but nothing more. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 14:39, 6 November 2015 (UTC)Reply
(after ec) But if we're going to allege a serious pattern of intentional biased editing and advocacy on Neelix' part, then nothing short of a full case is warranted. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 14:42, 6 November 2015 (UTC)Reply
  • The permalink provided by NeilN above is of great concern, but more worrying is that I can only see two responses to that situation: ANI on profanity-related redirects and removal of block discussion and Neelix's contributions at that time. It does not matter whether a mistake is "honest" as noted above—the point is that an admin must be known to have generally good judgment, whereas evidence seems to show the reverse. Johnuniq (talk) 06:11, 6 November 2015 (UTC)Reply
  • A quick Google search for "tittoos" shows a number of hits including to a NSFW article in a UK tabloid; So I think that was a valid and plausible redirect. Most of the others I looked at weren't needed, many slight variations on themes are things that search would probably now pick up. But Pink trumpet tree redirects from a common name to a plant article that mentions that common name in the lead - unless there are other trees called "Pink trumpet tree" then that seems a perfectly plausible redirect to me. It seems we have two issues here, creation of puerile redirects and mass creation of minor permutations that search should now pick up. I'd be happy to see Neelix restrict himself to only creating redirects where an alternate name is already mentioned in an article. ϢereSpielChequers 06:12, 6 November 2015 (UTC)Reply
    (ec)I agree on this. Tittoo is clearly a thing. It might not be a valid WP:NEO (though, evidence might be growing), but that's why there are redirects. Similarly for "Run-or-rape," which does have google hits in the context specified, would be difficult to say is truly an intentionally malicious redirect. Anyway, I have an issue with the idea of "offensive" even being used in conjunction with these—especially when it comes to anatomy. Our job is to report the facts and get people to them, so there's a modicum of translation involved when it comes to things that, let's face it, people learn as jargon and slang before they learn the proper name for them. I think most people learned "pee pee" before "urine" or "penis," for example, and that's just one thing. Our job is not to filter things out that we find offensive. "Useless" versus "useful" should be where the discussion is, but realistically that's more for WP:RFD. --slakr\ talk / 06:34, 6 November 2015 (UTC)Reply
    Shows what I know about "tittoos" I guess... Either way, my concern is with the massive number of completely implausible redirects—I have no issue with mass-creation of redirects (even if they're distasteful) if they are likely to be useful, but I worded the motion specifically to indicate that it was the inappropriate redirects that are an issue. I realize this is a bit of an overloaded term; I did not mean "inappropriate" in the sense that they are vulgar, but rather that they are not suitable for the project. GorillaWarfare (talk) 07:34, 6 November 2015 (UTC)Reply
  • I don't know about "tittoos" (I'm even more innocent than GorrilaW, because I'm older and predate the internet), but "run or rape", Slakr, does not strike me as a very valid redirect: I browsed around some and found nothing reliable, as I noted elsewhere. Anyone is free to restart that discussion or recreate them, of course. But I do object to us choosing the lowest possible terminology to construct our redirects. Having selected and deleted almost 400 of those redirects yesterday (I stopped at over 300, but then I think I did another batch), I have lost all respect for the editor. And I agree with GW's phrasing. Many were offensive and inappropriate for that reason, but many others were simply inappropriate in terms of suitability.

    The more general point, as far as I'm concerned, is the blatant sexism on display in the sheer overwhelming number of them. It is very, very hard for me not to see this is publicizing a fetish and using Wikipedia as a platform. I am not saying that Neelix is of the same caliber, but I am reminded of the guy who kept posting pictures of his cock all over Commons and inserted them in articles here: at some point the amount of material so outranks usefulness that it becomes ...what's the word... pathological. Spoke the amateur psychologist. Drmies (talk) 15:43, 6 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

  • Pink trumpet tree is a common name for multiple plants. There are problems with Neelix's organism related redirects and dabs. The fact that he created I. maxima as a redirect on the same day he created L. maxima as a dab makes me seriously question his judgement. There are multiple I. maximas in the universe of scientific names, so that will eventually need to be a dab page, even if we have only one I. maxima on Wikipedia at present. Other editors have created a lot of abbreviated scientific name redirects that need disambiguation (or, as I would prefer, deletion), and Neelix has done some work making these into dab pages. I don't understand why he would create the I. maxima redirect, when it should be obvious from the work he's done that these abbreviations are almost always going to need disambiguation, not redirection. Plantdrew (talk) 17:16, 6 November 2015 (UTC)Reply
    Hi Plantdrew. It's perfectly fine to create a redirect, disambiguation page, or stub at a particular title, even if that title may latter change. Perfect is the enemy of the done. We can always move pages and change titles to redirect or not redirect in the future as necessary. This is a wiki, after all. :-) --MZMcBride (talk) 01:10, 7 November 2015 (UTC)Reply
  • For me, the core of this is the question of judgment. As WP:ADMIN says, good judgment is expected from admins, and repeated incidents of bad judgment can lead to sanctions. In this case, the poor judgment shown by Neelix has been going on for years, and has resulted in, I am told, 80K of inappropriate redirects, some of which could be profoundly disturbing and insulting to Wikipedia editors, and the general public, and others of which are simply high-schoolish disruption that we would not tolerate in an IP or an unknown account. Such egegiously poor judgment is not commensurate with being an admin, and if Neelix doesn't resign the bit himself -- under a cloud -- then ArbCom needs to act. BMK (talk) 06:17, 6 November 2015 (UTC)Reply
  • @Euryalus: The community does not require ArbCom to block or topic ban Neelix - those discussions are ongoing on AN/I, and I'm sure a consensus, one way or the other, will develop; if not, it may bounce back to ArbCom. But at this moment the question before ArbCom is the one that the community cannot deal with, because it does not have the power to do so, and that is whether Neelix should be desysopped.
    In the normal case dealt with by ArbCom, the community has not been able to come to a consensus, and it's ArbCom's remit to find the solution to the problem. That's not the case here. The community cannot desysop Neelix, only ArbCom, but the community nonetheless has strong opinions concerning whether Neelix should be desysopped or not, and in that situation, it behooves the Arbs, as our elected representative, to pay close attention to the views of the community, and not only to their own opinions. That is not to say that Arbs shouldn't bring their own intelligence and experience to the table, but it needs to be acknowledged that this question has come before ArbCom not because the community is divided, but simply because the community doesn't have the necessary authority. In this circumstances, I think you, and the other Arbitrators, would be better advised to give more weight to the community's opinion than might perhaps normally be the case. BMK (talk) 06:31, 6 November 2015 (UTC)Reply
  • @Euryalus: Of course Arbs must bring their own judgment to the table when considering this, what I'm suggesting is that they not overthink it. Admins are supposed to show good judgment, Neelix has not, writ large; admins are supposed to have the trust of the community, the consensus is clearly that he no longer does; therefore Neelix needs to be desysopped, and the community cannot do it, so ArbCom must. It's pretty cut-and-dried, and the process issue are entirely beside the point: just invoke WP:IAR and fix the procedures before the next time -- that's what IAR is there for, so the correct result doesn't get swamped under procedural minutia. BMK (talk) 21:27, 6 November 2015 (UTC)Reply
  • I'd draw something of a parallel between the community's relationship to ArbCom in this instance, and ArbCom's relationship to bureaucrats in desysopping cases. ArbCom determines that an admin should be desysopped, but turns matters over to the bureaucrats for the actual removal of the bit. The bureaucrats bring their own judgment to the table, but in the absence of an extremely compelling reason not to do so, will follow ArbCom's decision.
    In this case, I believe that the community consensus (no, not unanimity, consensus) is that Nelix should be desysopped, but we have to turn to ArbCom for the final decision, because there is no community-based desysopping procedure (as there should be). I believe that if ArbCom reviews the community discussion, and finds -- as I think they will -- that there is a consensus for taking the bit away from Neelix, then, just like the bureaucrats considering an ArbCom desysop, in the absence of an extremely compelling reason not do so, the Committee should formalize the community's decision.
    I realize that such a relationship is very different from how ArbCom normally operates, because, normally, there is no community consensus, which is why that case is at ArbCom in the first place. In spite of that, I think this is the correct way for the Committee to perceive its role in the potential desysopping of Neelix - not as a rubber-stamp, but as the body that confirms that consensus does indeed exist in the community, and then formalizes it. If, however, they were to find upon examination of the communty discussion that there is no consensus, then we're back at square one, and the motion should be evaluated in exactly the same way ArbCom normally operates, to find a solution when there is no community consensus for one. BMK (talk) 22:00, 6 November 2015 (UTC)Reply
  • Support desysops; allow for an immediate re-RfA – let the community decide on Admin suitability in this case. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 07:13, 6 November 2015 (UTC)Reply
  • In response to Euryalus' comments: If we were just talking about stupid redirects - like the many minor variations on titles - this would be an annoying non-issue. The problem is the subset of stupid redirects that are offensive. I don't want to "punish" Neelix and would be happy to see an explanation, but the comments at ANI were insufficient to provide insight into how anyone might sincerely believe boobymilked and sucking situation would be plausible searches for breast milk and breastfeeding by people legitimately looking for information. Or look at the ones for medical terms, which are really the worst of the lot: has any actual human looking for information about abnormal breast development ever searched for hypoplastic boobies→‎micromastia? Looking for age-related breast atrophy, you'd try shrunk tit? I just can't get into the head of someone who doesn't see that these look like mockery of the conditions they link to. It makes the project look insensitive and unserious. Most of the time we take ourselves too seriously around here, but we can take ourselves a little more seriously than tumorous titty. Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:14, 6 November 2015 (UTC)Reply
Oh. It dawns upon my thick head to at least ask, was the editor, in some bored then eager loop, hoping to snare Google searches of "another kind" for such words and "helpfully" mislead them to "more staid" en.WP articles? Meanwhile, have there been meaningful botches with the bit itself? Gwen Gale (talk) 09:46, 6 November 2015 (UTC)Reply
  • What we need is a community method of desysoping... I'd much prefer that Arbcom were desysopping with a case than by straight motion. Hearing from Neelix before desysopping. For heaven's sake Arbcom is meant to be a slow process where cooler heads prevail! WormTT(talk) 08:23, 6 November 2015 (UTC)Reply
Although I don't oppose the creation of a mechanism for community desysopping, I see no reason why this needs to be a full case, and the community can't currently desysop on its own. What would a case look like - him trying to explain why on earth he thought tumorous titty and thousands of others were appropriate redirects, an evidence page consisting of a ton of people saying what the hell, and an eventual decision to desysop him and a finding of fact that "tumorous titty is not an apppropriate redirect"? Kevin Gorman (talk) 08:52, 6 November 2015 (UTC)Reply
If that's all it ends up as, yes. More importantly the time period between action and desysopping for a non-emergency should allow cooler heads to prevail. We're at the end of the year, Arbcom is a lame duck, many arbs are leaving and so less active. Forcing through a desysop in a non-emergency in those circumstances is just not the right way of doing things. WormTT(talk) 08:59, 6 November 2015 (UTC)Reply
Neelix has responded at the ANI request. I'm not sure what further input is needed here, and I disagree that a full case is necessary (or prudent). GorillaWarfare (talk) 08:54, 6 November 2015 (UTC)Reply
Well, the best thing to do would have been to email Neelix and talk to him about whether or not he needs the admin bit and recommending that he resign it. Pulling a desysop motion out in public when he hadn't publicly commented on being desysopped - for actions which were non admin actions, so it's basically a "lost community faith desysop" shouldn't be a something that happens by simple motion of 11 people. WormTT(talk) 08:59, 6 November 2015 (UTC)Reply
Perhaps not, and maybe this will be an impetus for a community-based desysop procedure, but this is all we have right now, and I'm not particularly willing to allow Neelix to slide between the cracks because we don't have a community-desysop protocol in place, The easiest thing would be for Neelix to give up the bit voluntarily (under a cloud), but a number of people have suggested that and we've had no response from him, so proceeding with the only other desysyoping mechanism we have in place, via ArbCom, seems a reasonable response tp his extended bad judgment and misbehavior. BMK (talk) 10:11, 6 November 2015 (UTC)Reply
I'm not saying a desysop for loss of community trust is wrong. I'm saying a desysop for loss of community trust by motion is wrong. There's a large number of reasons this should be a case, even if it's a simple one. WormTT(talk) 10:20, 6 November 2015 (UTC)Reply
Agreed that a private conversation preceding a public motion would have been a good idea. (Or maybe there was communication we're not aware of.) But if the eventual aim is to put down the torches and pitchforks and encourage a long-term volunteer to stick to his areas of competence, leave the (ahem) titillating redirects alone, and ideally quietly resign the bit he's barely using in any case, I don't think a month-long arb case in which all and sundry can post "evidence" in which they speculate about his motivations, off-wiki affiliations, religious beliefs, mental health (see ANI), etc etc etc. is an improvement on what we're currently doing. Opabinia regalis (talk) 20:27, 6 November 2015 (UTC)Reply
  • He created redirect a trip down mammary lane!? (LOL! An Administrator! An Ambassador! Such good vetting! Hilarious!) Desysop him. If he does again, even once, indef him. DUH. IHTS (talk) 10:10, 6 November 2015 (UTC)Reply
  • Having been heavily involved in the ANI discussion, including mass deletion of a number of these redirects and issuing a final warning, I initially called for de-sysop when I thought the account was compromised. Turns out it isn't. It seems like Neelix has been doing this for a number of years, and was previously blocked for it in 2010. Now the matter has been brought to the community's wider attention I doubt it will happen again, and there has been no abuse of tools. Therefore I oppose any de-sysop. GiantSnowman 10:28, 6 November 2015 (UTC)Reply
  • Missing the point The issue here isn't the "admin" block - protect - revdel - et. al. tool set, it's autopatrolled (bundled with admin). Had Neelix's contributions been appearing on the patrol list the problem would have been detected and addressed much sooner. That said, per WTT this motion is out of order -- and desysoping is not an IAR circumstance and I encourage the committee to decline for that reason. This is not an emergency, someone will file a case later if the committee's services are required. NE Ent 12:26, 6 November 2015 (UTC)Reply
He has performed a WP:INVOLVED block. In his second to last block [19]Neelix made was a clearly involved block of Xxxxxf to protect articles he created.
I believe desysop is appropriate here considering the amount of disruption caused, If he wants the tools again he should go to RFA. –Davey2010Talk 14:32, 6 November 2015 (UTC)Reply
  • Yes to de-sysopping. The sheer number of ridiculous and offensive redirects is mind boggling but that an Admin has done this for so long is beyond comprehension. What else has he been doing that is very unbecoming of a mop-bearer? The disruption alone is de-sysop worthy, in my opinion. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 16:15, 6 November 2015 (UTC)Reply
  • There are problems with Neelix's organism related redirects (and dabs). The fact that he created the redirect I. maxima and the dab page L. maxima on the same day

Bypassing Arbcom's own procedures

edit

@GorillaWarfare, Courcelles, LFaraone, and Thryduulf: I've got to say, I'm really uncomfortable with this motion. Arbcom has procedures set in place for removal of permissions, and this motion appears to be bypassing them. As far as I'm concerned, removal of permissions can happen through 3 methods:

  • Level 1 procedures - emergency for example due to compromised accounts, as we had a few days ago.
  • Level 2 procedures - Loss of trust with no satisfactory explanation.
  • As a result of a case.

Now, this desysop doesn't fit with any of those - but it's very close to the criteria for Arbcom's Level 2 procedures. So why in the hell are you not following Level 2 procedures? Have you contacted Neelix to discuss the matter - with the understanding that his administrator userright is on the line? And given him a reasonable chance to respond? He's been asked at ANI why he created a number of redirects as an editor not as an admin. There's a big difference and if Arbcom are considering a desysop, they owe the admin the courtesy of following their own procedures. It's not hard. Most importantly is the line "If the editor in question requests it, or if the Committee determines that a routine reinstatement of permissions is not appropriate, normal arbitration proceedings shall be opened to examine the removal of permissions and any surrounding circumstances." Straight desysop by motion is not appropriate here. WormTT(talk) 10:38, 6 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

As an armchair Arbcom observer since 2012, I agree that this will set an interesting precedent. --Fæ (talk) 10:45, 6 November 2015 (UTC)Reply
I feel that this escalation to ArbCom is appropriate. The community clearly has concerns, consensus is our most powerful tool and it can override guidelines in good faith, and if a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it. ~Oshwah~ (talk) (contribs) 11:46, 6 November 2015 (UTC)Reply
Totally agree with Worm that Turned, this isn't deserving of a desysop. Rephrasing to make it clearer: I agree with Worm that turned said. I further believe that Neelix doesn't deserve to have his bit removed over this. Sorry for the mis-wording, I realize you weren't saying Neelix didn't deserve to be desysoped!KoshVorlon 12:04, 6 November 2015 (UTC)Reply
Not what I said KoshVorlon. I've not made up my mind on whether there should be a desysop in this case. I'm saying that the way that the committee is going about the desysop is not right. WormTT(talk) 12:09, 6 November 2015 (UTC)Reply
I have to agree; feeling very uneasy with how this is being handled. Sam Walton (talk) 13:38, 6 November 2015 (UTC)Reply
  • Fully agree with much of the original concept Dave (WTT) had expressed here. — Ched :  ?  12:25, 6 November 2015 (UTC) (edited) aside: Perhaps the next time there are oppose votes at RfA over maturity concerns, they will be given more consideration. — Ched :  ?  21:43, 6 November 2015 (UTC)Reply
  • I oppose all of this as an absurd level of over-reach. There is a process for these things: first we warn. So far as I can tell, Neelix stopped after the first warning, so punitive measures should end there. bd2412 T 13:24, 6 November 2015 (UTC)Reply
@BD2412: Neelix was warned in 2010 for exactly this kind of creation of redirect and blocked. Despite the warning that a subsequent creation might result in a block I do not advocate a block in this case. I would be troubled about discussion of the sysop if there were no evidence of prior warning, but there is. The strongly worded warning in the block didn't seem to send the message. While he appears to have stopped after the current warning it was not the first warning.--S Philbrick(Talk) 16:12, 6 November 2015 (UTC)Reply
I was not aware of that, although it is five years old and somewhat distinguishable. I still think moving to desysop is jumping the gun by a mile, here. bd2412 T 16:30, 6 November 2015 (UTC)Reply
  • Query: Has anyone noticed the "new" 2601 account being so quick to notify everyone about the sins involved? I am far from certain about who was the actual culprit, though since the account is no longer misbehaving, I wonder if we are barking at the wrong tree? Proper course would be to email a known account for Neelix, and to lock this account until this is sorted out. "Desysopping" here seems a bit like locking the barn door. Collect (talk) 13:37, 6 November 2015 (UTC)Reply
Pinging @Drmies: since I think, based on their conversation, that he knows who the IP is and that they have been editing for 'years'. The original report was on Drmies talk page [25]. JbhTalk 13:52, 6 November 2015 (UTC)Reply
  • Collect, the IP is a notorious hopper--he just can't settle down. He's been here for years, slumming as an IP, and his edits are above board. You can go through my talk page archives looking for "99", which is how he has come to be known (before he got a smartphone, I suppose). Others can vouch for him as well but I want to respect their privacy. Drmies (talk) 15:26, 6 November 2015 (UTC)Reply
  • Thanks Drmies (as probably one of the "others"). I vouch for the IP as well. They actually have more sense and make better edits than many registered accounts. In any event, it's irrelevant to the matter at hand. This is about Neelix, not about the person who reported the problem.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:00, 7 November 2015 (UTC)Reply
  • In short he or she either is or is not a person with a registered username on Wikipedia? If so they have no reasonable expectation that the registered username will not be revealed. Collect (talk) 15:35, 6 November 2015 (UTC)Reply
  • If ,for an example, an IP was repeatedly harassing (2600:1000:b010:3bff:f9c5:d8f1:2a36:d8c5) an editor - any admin would be acting properly in denying that anyone might know who the IP really was? Or if an IP whose identity was specifically known to an admin decides to weigh in on a controversial topic - that the IP should be protected from being "outed" as a known editor? We are not talking "real life identities" here - we would be talking about a registered editor using an IP in order to hide who he is, in such a case. Collect (talk) 21:59, 6 November 2015 (UTC)Reply
  • Then tell me why WP:Checkuser is almost never used to compare a registered editor to an IP address, or at least the results are not made public. And those are generally cases where people are definitely acting maliciously (i.e. sockpuppeting). In this case, it's only you so far who are suggesting malice on the part of this "whistle-blower". LjL (talk) 22:06, 6 November 2015 (UTC)Reply
  • It's clear that Neelix has lost the community's trust in his good judgement as an administrator ... No, Neelix has not lost the community's trust; he might've lost yours, but you don't represent the community. Thank you. Alakzi (talk) 13:46, 6 November 2015 (UTC)Reply
  • Hey, you still refuse to believe that JackTheVicar is ColonelHenry, so your own judgment is rather suspect. In any event, I'm pretty darn certIn that your fringe beliefs don't represent those of the community. BMK (talk) 03:45, 7 November 2015 (UTC)Reply
I'm seeing a community supermajority WP:CONSENSUS of 2:1, so I'd say that Thryduulf's statement is correct. Softlavender (talk)
This alleged supermajority is of the self-selected group of people who post to the hell-hole that is AN/I, right? I strongly agree with Worm That Turned, Sam Walton, bd2412, et al. --MZMcBride (talk) 14:18, 6 November 2015 (UTC)Reply
I agree totally. Worm That Turned, BD2412, Sam Walton, et al. are right, and people who want Neelix's head based on an editing issue—rather than an admin issue—are suggesting solutions that are not supported by any policy whatsoever. A topic ban, a block, or even a warning? Fine. A desysopping? "His unacceptable conduct as an administrator" does not have to be punished based on a silly editing rampage about [censored]. It must be prevented. The way we can prevent that is by a topic ban. epic genius (talk) 17:29, 6 November 2015 (UTC)Reply
From WP:ADMIN:

Administrators who seriously, or repeatedly, act in a problematic manner or have lost the trust or confidence of the community may be sanctioned or have their access removed. In the past, this has happened or been suggested for: ... Repeated or consistent poor judgment. ... Administrators are expected to lead by example ... Occasional mistakes are entirely compatible with adminship; administrators are not expected to be perfect. However, sustained or serious disruption of Wikipedia is incompatible with the status of administrator, and consistently or egregiously poor judgment may result in the removal of administrator status.

So no more talk, please, about how he hasn't violated any policy. Besides which, if you actually read this thread and the AN/I, you'll find a number of incidents where Neelix used the tools to protect his version of articles, thus violating WP:INVOLVED. BMK (talk) 22:46, 6 November 2015 (UTC)Reply
I read the entire thing. Yes, Neelix has wheel-warred in the past. That was, what, 18 months ago? If he was still wheel-warring just a few days ago, he should have been blocked and desysopped immediately. Otherwise, we are just punishing him.Just admonishing him would be a good remedy. epic genius (talk) 01:56, 7 November 2015 (UTC)Reply
No, we're just stopping him from doing it again. The redirects show lack of good judgement, and the other past events show that this lack of good judgement concretized in misuse of admin tools. And we've shown we're all perfectly capable of not realizing that something like ~80000 bogus/abusive redirects are being created over the course of 5 years. Do we want to be at this point again in 2020? LjL (talk) 02:02, 7 November 2015 (UTC)Reply
  • I agree with WTT in part. This is an entirely new process, one which, as far as I can see, is nowhere to be found in policy or precedent; then again, this process certainly has advatages over level 1 and 2 desysops, in that we allow the community to voice their opinions before the fact, rather than after. On the other hand, as far as I can see, we haven't heard from Neelix yet (except for his comments on ANI) and, so, I'm not going to cast my vote at this time. At the same time, had this case been filed at RFAR, we could have dealt with it by motion and that would have been perfectly fine procedure-wise; so, in the spirit of WP:NOTBURO, I'm not sure there would be much point in closing this discussion, only to move everything to RFAR... Salvio Let's talk about it! 14:39, 6 November 2015 (UTC)Reply
    Except that if it was at RFAR, things would have played differently. Statements would have been heard. Holding comments requesting more statements would appear from arbs. No arb (I hope) would have proposed a motion to desysop, let alone voted on said motion, without a statement from Neelix in a reasonable time frame. Arbcom is set up to act in a certain manner for good reason. I would certainly agree to changing to L2 desysop procedure to include community comments before the desysop happens, but not on the fly during a L2 procedure! WormTT(talk) 14:44, 6 November 2015 (UTC)Reply
    As I said, I agree in part; this should have been filed as a case as RFAR from the beginning, that would have been the proper way to go about it. However, my point is, now that we have a bunch of statements anyway, is there really the need to move this discussion over to RFAR all the same? Or can we adapt this procedure, just for this once, for instance holding off on voting until we hear from Neelix? Salvio Let's talk about it! 14:50, 6 November 2015 (UTC)Reply
    That's got to be your choice as a committee. However, I will point out that things have changed since the motion was first posted. GW has already stated that her issue was with the implausibility of the redirects, rather than the puerility of the terms - yet the motion sticks with the word "inappropriate", which is distinctly vague and overreaching. There's a statement above that Neelix may have used tools while involved in the past. However, in this arena, we're stuck between "desysop or not", we don't get to consider other options, we don't get to look into the facts of the case. Are the facts quite so clear cut? I'm afraid I'm seeing mob rule here and it's getting my back up. WormTT(talk) 14:58, 6 November 2015 (UTC)Reply
    If I may, "inappropriate" applies both to implausible redirects and to puerile ones. Neither are appropriate, though of course for different reasons. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:27, 6 November 2015 (UTC)Reply
  • I don't really see how this is any different to a motion that was proposed at RFAR in lieu of a case, and a case isn't necessary—there's only one party, and the facts have been established. I would, though, emphasise that there is no rush; unless Neelix resumes his activities, we can wait to hear from him and have a "cool-down period"—there's no need to have this open and shut immediately. Nonetheless, an explanation for some of these redirects would have to be compelling. I expect administrators to have the judgement to know that "a trip down mammary lane" is not an appropriate redirect, and administrators serve as ambassadors and representatives of this project and should therefore not be party to juvenile nonsense like this which embarrasses themselves and the project. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:26, 6 November 2015 (UTC)Reply
    Why is "a trip down mammary lane" an inappropriate redirect in a WP:NOTCENSORED encyclopedia where it is reported in the article (and not by the editor under review) that this is a synonym for the sex act to which the article pertains? bd2412 T 15:41, 6 November 2015 (UTC)Reply
Frankly it's not inappropriate in terms of censorship, but probably inappropriate as something readers are unlikely to search for. Does including that information in the article actually add anything other than trivia, or is it merely added for shock value? Either way, Neelix did not add it. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 16:13, 6 November 2015 (UTC)Reply
  • Support: Admins should not behave like this. Sometimes when editor becomes very experienced that time he/she thinks that no one will oppose them whatever they do. Though we have some liberty for choosing name of redirects still creation these kind of redirects does not suit admins. These are not search terms. I don't know deep history of Neelix, but I saw this matter is going on ANI and elsewhere so wanted to comment here. As I see on his userpage, Neelix has done good work too, I wonder how such experienced editor and admin can do such things? Maybe his/her account is operated by 2 people, other person who operates his account is very immature.--Human3015TALK  15:58, 6 November 2015 (UTC)Reply
  • (edit conflict) I am finding at least some misuse of tools, see above. There are also a lot of lists where he has "moved protection" - maybe moved the article and protected, I really do not understand the notation so I do not know is this is protecting a favored name or is within policy. Someone who is more familiar than I should look at his protection log.

    It looks like there might be a lot of POV pushing going on but that is based on the above linked WO article. If that is true we need to move this to a full case because he needs to be banned outright and he deserves the chance to explain himself that a full case would give. JbhTalk 16:00, 6 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

  • I have a question. How are the creation of these redirects in any way related to misuse of administrator tools? Does the creation of female body part redirects somehow require admin tools only? I am not saying that Neelix is wrong, but I think desysopping is punitive because if an admin wanted to get Neelix to stop, he/she could just have blocked him. This does not fit under any desysopping procedures, whether Level 1 or Level 2. epic genius (talk) 17:17, 6 November 2015 (UTC)Reply
    • Desysopping does not require a misuse of the tools. It can also take place in response to a long-term pattern of poor judgement or other (mis)behavior, sufficient to bring into question the presumption that an admin retains the trust of the community. Neelix's behavior here likely clears that bar.
      That said, NE Ent correctly notes above that as part of the admin user rights bundle Neelix gets the autopatrolled user right. For editors with this right, any new articles – including redirects – they create are automatically identified as "reviewed" or "patrolled" on Special:NewPagesFeed and Special:NewPages. There's a fair argument to be made that if Neelix hadn't enjoyed autopatrolled rights, his history of creating thousands of useless and offensive redirects would have come to the community's attention much sooner. There's no way to remove the autopatrolled right from Neelix without desysopping him. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:53, 6 November 2015 (UTC)Reply
Apparently, if he didn't have the "autopatrolled" bit, which is implicitly part of the "admin" bit, all these thousands redirects would have been reviewed by someone in the, you know, years they've been happening. LjL (talk) 17:56, 6 November 2015 (UTC)Reply
@TenOfAllTrades and LjL: Oh, I see now. These comments make a lot more sense (basically, behavior unbecoming an admin, rather than explicit admin misuse). Thanks for the clarifications, guys. epic genius (talk) 18:26, 6 November 2015 (UTC)Reply
@LjL Autopatrolled does mean his redirects were automatically marked as patrolled, but even if they weren't both Special:NewPagesFeed and Special:NewPages default to not showing redirects. On the basis that redirects are cheap and usually harmless we focus our newpage patrolling at articles. So I'm not sure being autopatrolled will have made that much difference. ϢereSpielChequers 19:12, 6 November 2015 (UTC)Reply
Separately from all of this, though, it does make me wonder if "Autopatrolled" should be part of the "rights bundle" granted to Admins – I think I could make a pretty good argument that Autopatrolled should be a completely distinct right, granted separately, and not included in the Admin bundle. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:07, 6 November 2015 (UTC)Reply
The English Wikipedia has 3,628 users with the autopatrolled explicitly granted. WP:Autopatrolled is one of those rights (along with rollbacker, reviewer and template editor) that's been unbundled so the bar for trusting editors to have this right is lower than administrator... Wbm1058 (talk) 20:39, 6 November 2015 (UTC)Reply
But that's not the point, the point is that if you are administrator, conversely, then you automatically have that right. In this case, Neelix being an administrator automatically grants him something that (as an editor) he probably should not have. In fact, there are people who argue against desysopping because the "crime" was committed as an editor, not as an admin and not by using admin tools, and yet, being an admin may well have been what ultimately allowed him to continue doing this for so long, unnoticed and/or unstopped. LjL (talk) 20:44, 6 November 2015 (UTC)Reply
Except as Liz pointed out, it's irrelevant. Redirects don't show up in WP:NPP anyway, so whether or not Neelix had that right wouldn't have mattered. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 20:52, 6 November 2015 (UTC)Reply
I'm not just talking about that bit, I'm talking about being an administrator in general. Because if Wikipedia can collectively miss 80000 "troll" redirects by an administrator, that's pretty bad, but at least we'd have the excuse that we didn't check because we assumed an administrator wouldn't be doing smoething like that. And they were blocked for it before. LjL (talk) 20:56, 6 November 2015 (UTC)Reply
Whether redirects appear or not is a option the viewer selects: New pages with redirects -- so this idea that "redirects don't appear on new pages" is false (if you're boolean minded) or at best only partially true (if you're more of a Bayesian). NE Ent 23:36, 6 November 2015 (UTC)Reply
My point is, unless I'm missing something, Admins shouldn't need the Autopatrolled right to carry out their duties – Autopatrolled is about being able to create (good) articles, but there are plenty of Admins (incl. several recent successful RfA candidates, and several more RfA candidates who while they failed were credible Admin prospects) who either had no articles created or who had only a few articles created at the time of their RfA. I'm personally not comfortable giving Autopatrolled to Admins who intend to primarily be Vandal fighters or article deleters, etc. and whose primary focus isn't article creation. To my mind, Autopatrolled should be a separate "thing" that's not a standard part of the "bit" and that's granted purely on "good article creation" grounds... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:04, 6 November 2015 (UTC)Reply
The problem is that admins are supposed to be trustworthy, that's one of the points of having to pass through a vetting process. The autopatrolled right is intended for trustworthy editors as well, only with a level of trustworthiness that's less than that for admins (which is less than that for functionaries etc.), so there's no logical reason to unbundle the autopatrolled right, especially considering there's no real history of admin abuse of the right. I'm afraid your suggestion is a non-starter. BMK (talk) 05:16, 7 November 2015 (UTC)Reply
I just gave you a "logical" reason, and this current circumstance provides another. And we continue with the canard that passing an RfA confers "trustworthness" (apparently in all things!!), despite the fact that 1) that proposition is questionable at best, and 2) RfA's are not specifically checking for article writing skills (and a significant number of those who pass RfA's don't have them). (Yes, some voters insist on high-level article writing skills, but they are definite minority of RfA voters.) So, no, I find your dismissal of the idea to be virtually a non sequitur. (Now, if you had said the Admin corps will likely object to removing Autopatrolled from the bit, then you might have had a point...) --IJBall (contribs • talk) 06:19, 7 November 2015 (UTC)Reply
The autopatrolled right doesn't mean that the person is able to create high quality articles, it just means that they can be trusted to create articles which don't need to be checked by NP patrollers. This saves NP patrol time by ensuring that patrollers' efforts can be concentrated in areas where it is actually necessary. NP patrol is largely about identifying articles which are obvious candidates for deletion. If someone isn't capable writing an article which doesn't qualify for speedy deletion then they should not be an administrator, not least because that person doesn't understand our deletion processes, but this has very little to do with high level article writing skills. Hut 8.5 15:59, 7 November 2015 (UTC)Reply
So clearly Neelix should not be an administrator. LjL (talk) 16:06, 7 November 2015 (UTC)Reply
This may be a subtle difference, but I interpret that differently – that Admins won't create articles that would otherwise be "speedied" (i.e. that we trust they won't), not that they necessarily know how to not create non-"speediable" articles. But, again, not everyone who becomes an Admin is necessarily interested in doing CSD, and even those can simply read the criteria carefully before doing CSD work. This still doesn't mean that they necessarily know how to create "good" articles (or are even interested in doing so...) --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:31, 7 November 2015 (UTC)Reply
I'm not really sure I understand your point: if admins either know how to create acceptable articles, don't create articles or have the sense to read up on what constitutes an acceptable new article before creating one... why shouldn't they have the autopatrolled right? Bear in mind that creating a non-speediable article is pretty easy for anyone who knows and complies with fundamental policy: if the article has comprehensible content, is neutrally written, cites reliable sources and isn't a copyvio then it is very unlikely to be speedied. (And if someone doesn't understand neutrality, verifiability or copyright then they really should not be an administrator.) Hut 8.5 23:04, 7 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

Arbitrary break

edit

As I said over at ANI, Neelix is level-headed in person, and I never imagined that I'd see this. However, I didn't know about the 2010 block for pretty much the same thing—and a response that is eerily similar to those he's giving today. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 19:51, 6 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

Worth noting, for the record, that Neelix has been deleting some of the inappropriate redirects since this conversation began. Most of the offensive ones were already cleaned up yesterday, but the ones he's chosen to delete are certainly in the category of "useless". Opabinia regalis (talk) 20:15, 6 November 2015 (UTC)Reply
(ec)On the plus side, Neelix is cleaning up old redirects. On the negative side, it looks like the problem goes beyond breast-related redirects.
I know I've said this already but this is the fourth case of excessive redirects ANI saw within a week. I think that the page creation of redirects is not overseen by the new page patrol and there is nothing preventing an editor from creating 40 or 50 or 100 implausible redirects to the same article. Perhaps redirect guidelines should be tightened up? Liz Read! Talk! 20:17, 6 November 2015 (UTC)Reply
I posted earlier today a proposal to add a "what not to create" section at Wikipedia talk:Redirect#Proliferation of redirects. It needs work and could use the input of editors here. This was something I had been thinking about for a while and wasn't motivated by this case in particular, though obviously it helped. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 20:21, 6 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

@Seraphimblade: we're not looking at a "bright line" type violation here ← I'm not really sure which line could be brighter than an estimated eigthy thousand redirects the vast majority of which have been deemed positively vulgar/puerile/trolly. Other editors would be blocked forever, but this is an admin, and you're not even sure whether he should stay an admin, nevermind blocking, because you know, he's an admin after all. LjL (talk) 22:28, 6 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hi LjL. "Vast majority" is pretty strong language and not supported by evidence. In looking at an editor's wiki contributions to the project, maybe it helps to also note that Neelix has several featured articles and good articles, according to his user page. I don't think it's appropriate to demonize him. --MZMcBride (talk) 01:01, 7 November 2015 (UTC)Reply
Redirects aren't articles. I said "vast majority" of redirects. And the ANI thread showed more. Who's claiming all his contributions are negative? Certainly not me. But it really doesn't take showing that to demonstrate that he's not fit to be an admin from even just a fraction of the rest of the stuff. LjL (talk) 01:08, 7 November 2015 (UTC)Reply
Actually the loopy breast and shirtlessness redirects have received all of the attention but having looked at Anomie's list, it looks like about 50-70% of the redirects concern various species of frogs. There are tens of thousands of frog redirects. Now who would like to take on that job of reviewing them? Liz Read! Talk! 01:53, 7 November 2015 (UTC)Reply
The puerile redirects were bad and I doubt most commenting here, who are not admins, are aware of just how inappropriate they were and the massive lack of judgement creating them showed. Here are some of them via the deletion logs of two admins who worked hard to delete them [26] [27]. While this was going on Neelix did absolutely nothing to help. Even after all of this discussion all he has done is clean up about 100 extremely stupid redirects to, I assume, Polycephaly [28]. I—just—do—not—get—it. JbhTalk 02:05, 7 November 2015 (UTC)Reply
What, exactly, is the rush to clean up? One of the best things to do in a situation like this is to not make hasty decisions such as going on a deletion spree. It's also a lot easier to say "this is how you should respond when the mob shows up" than it is to actually act that way when there's a mob after you.
If you look at the redirects that Neelix has created that don't involve the word "boobies" or "titties", you can see that he simply has a different understanding of what's appropriate for a redirect. Here's an example: Categorically, Categorizations, Categorizes, Categorized, Categorisations, Categorises, Categorised, Categorising, Categorizational, Categorisational, Categorizationally, Categorisationally, Categorizer, Categorizers, Categoriser, Categorisers.
Someone who creates this many permutations of redirects is obviously going to do the same with "titties" or "boobies" and many, many other topics. Thousands of redirects worth of topics, it turns out. Maybe I'm just really naïve, but I've yet to see compelling evidence that Neelix was acting in bad faith. It takes a lot of time and dedication (we're taking about many years) to create this many redirects. I think a lot of people are being overly harsh and critical here. --MZMcBride (talk) 02:46, 7 November 2015 (UTC)Reply
No, MZMcbride, I disagree. If this was done more or less indiscriminately there'd be more body parts than just women's breasts (and perhaps folks without pants on). I'm not saying they were created out of bad faith, but even without psychologizing too much on can say that they were done possibly out of an obsession. Sure, there's dedication, but it's not a very proper dedication. The rush to clean up, well, I don't care about tree frogs, lovely creatures though they may be--I'm concerned with the incredibly inappropriate ones, which are offensive and insulting in so many ways for so many people, including Mrs. Drmies and my mother, and thus for me also. I hadn't yet seen the ones Iridescent cleaned up, or maybe I had reached my maximum capacity. We simply cannot have this if we want to take ourselves seriously.

I don't see the need for some speedy desysop; I couldn't care less if it were done tomorrow or in two weeks, and I don't need to see a block (yet). (So I have no opinion whether this needs RFAR or not; I don't care, and I do hope they will weigh in--but so far they haven't, and not because they haven't been online.) Neelix's edits are under a microscope, so I see no imminent danger of future edits or involved administrative action, but the stuff that Iridescent and I deleted, that stuff had to go, the sooner the better. That's the rush, or that was the rush. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 04:27, 7 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

  • This obsession seems to have been going on for quite a while. Neelix created the page Titty all the way back in 2008. Kelly hi! 05:08, 7 November 2015 (UTC)Reply
  • I fully support handling this by motion. For whatever reason a large number of active editors don't like the idea of community desysop; now that arbcom is stepping in, people are demanding that every non-emergency desysop be accompanied by a case? Adminship needs to be easier to gain and much easier to lose. Making desysopping a more involved and difficult process would (rightly) make people more even nervous about supporting at RfA, which doesn't help at all. wctaiwan (talk) 06:20, 7 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

List of most (all?) redirects created

edit

Just in case it's needed, here's a list Anomie created of redirect Neelix created. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 00:12, 7 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

For those not watching ANI, there is another version at toollabs:earwig-dev/neelix/chronological.html that is hopefully easier to work with. — Earwig talk 04:38, 7 November 2015 (UTC)Reply
  • @The Earwig: I wasn't watching ANI but am a regular at RfD. Is it possible to make a list only where the redirects are not in any category? This might (or might not) pare it down a bit, for one thing the speedily-created redirects have in common is that they are never categorised (I suppose that would take too long). Si Trew (talk) 13:34, 7 November 2015 (UTC)Reply
@The Earwig: yeah, that's nice, thanks. Any chance the links on that page could be made to go to the redirect rather than the target (i.e. "&redirect=no" in the URL)? Si Trew (talk) 04:23, 8 November 2015 (UTC)Reply
@SimonTrew: Done. — Earwig talk 05:47, 8 November 2015 (UTC)Reply
@The Earwig: Thanks. We're plodding through some of the less clear-cut over at RfD, but whole swathes can be safely deleted. In particular, it's useful that if another editor has changed the R it's not listed. My way of plodding through these will be to look at this list first, rcat those I think are useful, so that they then will come off the list (I presume) before being mass deleted or mass listed at RfD. There's a good bit of collaboration going on here, which is so nice to see. (To be clear, I am not an admin.) Si Trew (talk) 06:33, 8 November 2015 (UTC)Reply
Second reason
edit

I've been doing this Wikipedia dispute resolution stuff for a long time now (Too long, perhaps) -- I'd be surprised if there's any endgame here which includes Neelix having a sysop bit. There's another reason this out of process motion is problematic; it has denied him the opportunity to simply resign under a cloud and now his name, per the banal crushing arbcom bureaucracy, must be recorded in some archive (passed motions, denied motions) rather than being lumped in the other 903 pages of ANI archives (which, per The Purloined Letter is pretty close to hidden). Guerillero has incorrectly stated arbcom is like a Senate -- given that's where Caesar was assassinated ... In any event: No, arbcom is not supposed to a govcom "legislature," ya'll are supposed to the wiki-equivalent of a Supreme Court: "serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve." As we were still talking at WP:CESSPIT, er, Administrator's Noticeboard for Incidents -- go work on the way overdue e-cig decision or deny today's batch of banned editor email appeals -- when ya'll are needed someone will fill out the appropriate overly long and complicated template. We don't need ya'll to be Judge Dredds, we need Solomons and Judge Judy's, and cowboy arbitrating is as bad as, or worse than, cowboy admining. NE Ent 00:17, 7 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

Is it really so tragic that his name is now forever recorded on this page? His behavior created a huge ruckus, and when I said on ANI that you all should very quickly hide this under the rug before the press noticed, I didn't really mean it. I'd say his name showing up on a list of motion is, by far, the least he could incur. And sure, give him the opportunity to "resign his bit under a cloud", but I believe that opportunity has been mentioned a number of times and in the meanwhile Neelix has continued to make inconspicuous edits that did not include giving up the bit. If you're pretty sure the end result is that his bit will be removed, then beating around the bush with bureaucracy is just annoying, and a press-magnet. LjL (talk) 00:25, 7 November 2015 (UTC)Reply
The contention that the current method of dealing with the problem prevents Neelix from voluntarily giving up the bit is total balderdash. He can do it any time he wants to, regardless of whether ArcCom had opened a case or is dealing with it by motion. In fact, he could have -- and should have -- done so when the extent of the misbehavior became clear at An/I, before it ever got to ArbCom. A number of editors counseled him to do so, and we heard nothing whatsoever from him. The notion that the "proper procedure" would have given him more opportunity to resign has no relationship with reality -- and frankly, at this point I don't care, nor do most of the Wikipedia editors who have called for the desysop. Only a handful of people care about the "inside baseball" aspects of this, the rest of us just want the problem resolved with a desysop and a topic ban. We are a social system in which the result is always more important than the process.. All this hand-wringing is completely unnecessary: just solve the problem. BMK (talk) 02:08, 7 November 2015 (UTC)Reply
  • A case? I'm all for taking your time and not rushing to decisions, but if any outside person looked at the amount of time that has been spend at ANI, User Talk pages and here, I think they would begin to understand the biggest problem that Wikipedia is facing these days is bureaucracy. How many frickin words, statements, paragraphs, suggestions, need to be written and heard on what should be an open and shut motion. Whichever way one is thinking, it should be easy. I wasn't for a desysop, but the excuses and the block from 2010 lead me to believe there should only be one outcome. The continued explanations and haranguing is impossible to understand. Dave Dial (talk) 07:53, 7 November 2015 (UTC)Reply
+1. Thank you, DD2K (talk · contribs). A responsible non-profit organization respects its real-life volunteers, and enforces social norms in a way that is comparable to what happens in a real-life collaborative situation. Prolonged struggle sessions are not necessary here. --Djembayz (talk) 15:39, 7 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

De-sysopping might well be appropriate, but a case is needed. As Seraphimblade said, this is a case of poor judgement, and does not need emergency-speed intervention. -- The Anome (talk) 14:08, 7 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

Actually, it's also about a loss of confidence in this Admin by the community – determining that shouldn't require a full case. Really, this doesn't require a full ArbCom case. And, if it does, it really does emphasize the fact that a non-ArbCom, community-based way to remove Admins is a necessity. A full case of this seems like a waste of ArbCom's (and everybody else's) time. This case, and Yngvadottir's, really beg for quick desysopses, followed by the opportunity for an immediate re-RfA: just let the community decide. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:56, 7 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

What the hell? No, guys, you don't need a full case; what possible purpose would it serve? You've already got the evidence you need, and there are only a few remedies that make sense, so holding a month-long case does nothing other than to continue humiliating an identifiable person and to make the project look even more indecisive and ridiculous than it already does. ("Hmm, so we have this problem of women not finding our community a welcoming place. Meanwhile, what do we do about an admin who thinks it's appropriate to refer to breast cancer as 'tit tumors'?") Never mind the merits of the procedural decisions up to this point; now that we're here, just desysop him and get it over with. Opabinia regalis (talk) 23:30, 7 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

Maybe women complaining about breast cancer being referred to in that way are just exhibiting bitchingness... (yup, that's one of his redirects). LjL (talk) 23:35, 7 November 2015 (UTC)Reply
But not bitchitude and the many possible variations. Bitchitudinousness, bitchitudinality, bitchitudinalitousness, bitchificationistically.... I see another 300 redirects coming, to help the hapless user's search for the right article, no doubt. Opabinia regalis (talk) 04:49, 8 November 2015 (UTC)Reply
Not just here, at Commons too
edit

At first I was trying to think of an innocuous reason for all these strange redirects - was this just a way of grinding his edit count higher, like a score in a video game? Under his real name, David Mark Purdy (it's at the top of his user page), Neelix has given interviews to the press as one of Wikipedia's "top 50 editors" and highlighted his edit count of 130,000[29][30] (were a majority of those silly and puerile redirects?) Was he just wanting attention and accolades and thought a high edit count would do that?

After I saw this thread, I also went to look at his Commons contribs. Apparently back in January, Neelix retired for a couple months after he came to the attention of offline forums, including Wikipediocracy, for the creepy shrinelike nature of Tara Teng and related articles. While he was inactive here, he went to Commons. His contribs there had been previously limited and routine, but in January he began to create hundreds, if not thousands, of odd categories involving nudity. The list is here, just keep scrolling. His first one in this vein was "Blue pasties", soon progressing to "Topless women wearing panties", "Topless women with nipple piercings", "Topless women with closed eyes and opened mouth", "Nude women drinking", "Nude women with pianos", "Men touching nude women's breasts"....it just goes on and on and on continuing up to this month.

There's something very wrong here. Neelix made a small effort to start cleanup and seems to have abandoned the whole thing. I frankly would not be surprised if we have seen the last of him here. But I'm thinking the bit should probably be removed soonest in any case. Kelly hi! 14:07, 7 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for mentioning edit counts. That had occurred to me and prompted me to wonder if we should stop reporting edit counts beyond some level. I wrote up some thoughts at the [[I wrote up some thoughts at the idea lab--S Philbrick(Talk) 16:43, 7 November 2015 (UTC)Reply
The precedent -- a very good one -- is for the committee to suspend the case until such time as a) the editor returns, or b) they are desyopped for inactivity. Arbitration Committees are at their best when they are slow, thoughtful, and deliberate -- we already have a WP:PITCHFORKS. Short cuts make long delays. J.R.R. Tolkien This notion that procedure can be skipped when a) the result is obvious and/or b) the ends justify the means inevitability backfire because more time is spent discussing why you're not having the prescribed discussion than the prescribed discussion would have taken. NE Ent 17:39, 7 November 2015 (UTC)Reply
Only if people who reason your way "inevitably" spend too much time discussing why the so-called "prescribed" (except WP:BURO) discussion did not take place. LjL (talk) 18:09, 7 November 2015 (UTC)Reply
Freeze the case and leave it to the next coming Arbcom team
edit

Trying to speed-up the process by an arbitrator motion doesn't seem to work. This mostly occurs because time is part of the curation process. It needs time for the rank and file editor discovers that a non yet dead woman suffering of breast cancer is in fact some kind of living person (you know, the LP of the famous BLP mantra).

On the other hand, some admins have already started to clean part of the mess... becoming involved, according to the rules. And it will take some time for some other admins to recover from what appears as a kind of "tools lack-of-response syndrom". Perhaps some column in some newspaper (Pacific Review, Gibraltar Globe, what else) is needed. Perhaps, this is only the well known fact that surgery should not occur too late, but also not too early: pus collection, reaction of the organism, etc. all of this are part of what a surgeon should watch.

In any case, Arbcom should not react as a first line defense: Arbcom is the last defense line.

Moreover, the current Arbcom team, has already a large workload for spending their 12 people times two months remaining womanpower: no less than five open cases ! It would be a great idea to clean the place before leaving, and wait for the next coming Arbcom team to deal with these thousands of offensive redirects. Only freeze the situation for the next coming two months by restricting Neelix from doing anything in the article space except from cleaning the mess he created. Pldx1 (talk) 19:37, 7 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

ArbCom needs to recognize that they are not one thing only

edit

I work as a stage manager in the theatre, and as such I am responsible to a number of people. To the producer who employs me, I must see that the production gets mounted, reporting problems and helping to alleviate them; to the director, I am responsible for seeing that the artistic choices they make are properly carried out; to the actors, and as a member of the actors' union, I am the first line in making sure that all the union's rules and regulations are followed. These divided responsibilities mean that it is frequently the case that I must balance between them, playing different roles if necessary, but always working to the best of my ability for the betterment of the production.

ArbCom needs to realize that they, too, have divided responsibilities, and are not always one thing only.

Most of the time, they are a deliberative quasi-judicial body, similar to a court of last resort, which must act to decide between various elements of the community which cannot agree on what should be done. In this role, moving slowly and with great consideration is the proper thing to do, as they are the last step in a process which will certainly make some portion of the community unhappy.

There are times, however, where ArbCom must realize that they are our only elected representatives, and their role is not to act slowly and with great deliberation, but to act quickly and with great decisiveness to put an end to a problem. These situations come about when the community is essentially not divided, and there is a general consensus about what should be done, but has no power to put it into effect. In those circumstances, ArbCom must act as the elected representatives of the community and formalize what the people want to happen.

In rejecting dealing with the Neelix situation by motion -- which appears to be where the Committee is heading -- ArbCom has confused its roles. The consensus of the community seems clear, and is not going to get any clearer by holding a full case, nor are the facts going to get any better for Neelix -- although they could potentially get worse. In that circumstance, ArbCom must act as the people's elected representatives, examine the discussions to confirm that there is a consensus, and put that consensus into effect. Their role in this situation is not the normal one, there is not need of their normal slow methodical deliberation, because if there is a consensus in the community about what to do, it is not ArbCom's place to overrule that consensus. Indeed, one might say that if there is a consensus, and ArbCom overrules it, they have drastically overstepped their bonds.

ArbCom has showed that it can act quickly and decisively in cases where they see an immediate need to, passing emergency desysops by motion on a number of occasions. The fact that the Committee is so obviously reticent to do the same when it is the community, rather than ArbCom, which has identified the problem, is something of a slap in the face to the editors of Wikipedia. It would behoove the Committee to rectify that by continuing to deal with the Neelix situation by motion, and to confirm the community's consensus that his long term behavior is not worthy of his continuing to be an admin. BMK (talk) 23:16, 7 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

RFAR opened

edit

[31] — Ched :  ?  04:52, 8 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

Not desysopping Neelix here is a pretty severe mistake

edit
  • Y'all, this is not a level two desysop, this is a desysop by motion. If you want to be policy wonks about it, I feel the need to point out that even though it has not previously been done AFAIK, there's nothing in arbcom policy that prohibits a desysop by motion. You've heard from Neelix, and you've heard from the community - actually, you've heard from the community a lot more than you do on many workshop and evidence pages, and the overwhelming thing you've heard is that this incident alone means that this incident alone has been sufficient to make the community lose faith in Neelix's ability to adequately use the admin toolset, like blocking people, having unremovable autopatrolled, and viewing deleted revisions (which is of especial concern to me because it's not logged.) The discoveries of Neelix's prior misuse of the explicit admin toolset are irrelevant here; this incident alone has made it clear that a huge part of the community has lost trust in Neelix - and on an individual level most of you have also. Strip his damn bit, and allow him to immediately RFA again if he wants - his instances of tool misuse will be brought up by the community in any future RFA. You have way too many full cases on your plate. This one won't get handled quickly if it's not handled by motion. The admin toolset includes tools that cannot be monitored for abuse. Stripping his bit by motion is perfectly within arbcom policy, and is the appropriate step to take. If you think it shouldn't be within arbcom policy, rewrite your damn policy! Not stripping his bit by motion here is making it less likely that Neelix will be a productive editor in any area - because it's making it way more likely he'll be blocked or have huge community sanctions put on him. You're extending drama you could make shorter, do the right, procedure compliant, drama minimizing thing, and strip his bit. Kevin Gorman (talk) 17:43, 8 November 2015 (UTC)Reply
  • An additional and possibly more important point is that dragging the issue out and producing more pages of criticism of the user is extremely unhelpful to Neelix (with a real name on their user page) from a personal point of view. Dancing all over the guy in order to get the Is and Ts correct is unkind and destructive. Johnuniq (talk) 22:21, 8 November 2015 (UTC)Reply
  • It probably goes without saying that I agree fully. with Kevin and Johnuniq. BMK (talk) 02:17, 9 November 2015 (UTC)Reply
  • Well, it's done, so we're just whistling Dixie here. But yeah, do we really need to spell out, again, what all was wrong here? Does that do our editor and soon-to-be-former admin any good? Drmies (talk) 05:00, 9 November 2015 (UTC)Reply
  • The initial motion was to desysop on the basis of an indeterminate number of silly/offensive redirects, without waiting for Neelix to respond. This seemed a little unfair given Neelix' longstanding contributions to WP. Given there was no emergency, it also seemed outside the usual process. Then evidence was presented of other issues including the use of tools while WP:INVOLVED, and a past history of other offensive redirects. There was enough here for a case request at the least, and a majority of the Committee has now voted to accept it.
  • I am a little surprised at the argument that a case is insensitive to Neelix's feelings but an arbitrary desysop without opportunity to respond is not. I'm also surprised that some of the people who rightly criticised Arbcom for making up new procedures over the last year, now object to Arbcom following existing procedures to the letter. Either way, I suspect it won't take long to resolve. There's a body of evidence against Neelix, an opportunity for him to respond, and no reason to rush an outcome ahead of proper consideration. And yes, I am a real life bureaucrat. But due process is not always a bad thing. -- Euryalus (talk) 06:06, 9 November 2015 (UTC)Reply
  • After reviewing thousands of his "contributions" and seeing news reports he solicited about his involvement on Wikipedia I believe he ran up his edit count for personal fame, and went way off the deep end. In addition he breached BLP policy and showed creepy stalker tendencies building and defending Tara Teng‎. Allowing him to continue as an Auto patrolled editor is crazy, and the only way to end that is strip Admin tools. If this behavior is ok, who will accept that their behavior is not ok here? Legacypac (talk) 14:19, 9 November 2015 (UTC)Reply
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Other comments

edit
Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Comment by User:Müdigkeit

edit

There might be involvement of other adminstrators( using adminstrative actions) in this case, as discussed in an ANI thread here. You might want to add some accounts to the case parties.--Müdigkeit (talk) 08:39, 11 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Neelix&oldid=1137351944"